Originally Posted by
MSPeconomist
I would agree on this. It sounds like noncompetitive quality for the prices charged (execution failure), or possibly overoptimism or bad yield management. In any event, it's a mistake with some costs of reconfiguring otherwise fairly new aircraft interiors, plus some loss of face.
On the quality level, I would point to inferior and declining lounges except at NRT, (at best inconsistent) overall service on board, (poor/cheap) wine quality (except for the two new Burgundy selections in BE), bad arrival experience at LAX from HND, schedule (in)convenience for some routes, (generally poor) FF program, (generally poor) quality of alliance partners, (lack of) transparency and ease of booking via the website, etc. IMO the TPAC hard product is generally excellent (except for some of the connecting flights) with flat beds all having direct aisle access, good AVOD, and good bedding (but no mattress pads or PJs).
To the end of your post, all I care about on TPAC is the seats. I would fly BE in flat bed direct access and take meals of bugs or grits, vs 2-4-2 BE and meals served personally by the best chef in the world.
But to the first point, I think you are not putting your econ hat on here. DL's Y product might well be a game changer, by default. As everybody else goes to 10 across (which is dreadful), DL will be upping the price in Y.
Under IROPS, if I had to sit in the back TPAC in a 3-3-3, I would cringe (never have done this). I can fly Y+ 2-4-2 OK. But put me in a 3-4-3 and I will walk off the plane, seriously.
This play of a better Y might fail (if too many just book lowest cost). But it is not clearly just a failure to sell BE.